ReviewInternational journal of radiation biology2024
Minimum reporting standards should be expected for preclinical radiobiology irradiators and dosimetry in the published literature.
Review in International journal of radiation biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Organoids in Precision Radiotherapy: Methodological Foundations, Tumor-Specific Evidence, and Translational Roadmaps.Cancer medicine · 2026Review
- Radiation exposure facilities for radiobiology in Europe: availability, capabilities, and limitations.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2026Review
- The importance of standardization and challenges of dosimetry in conventional preclinical radiation biology research.The British journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Megavoltage photon FLASH for preclinical experiments.Medical physics · 2025Article
- Radiation-induced gastrointestinal and cutaneous injuries: understanding models, pathologies, assessments, and clinically accepted practices.International journal of radiation biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection.2024
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The cornerstones of science advancement are rigor in performing scientific research, reproducibility of research findings and unbiased reporting of design and results of the experiments. For radiation research, this requires rigor in describing experimental details as well as the irradiation protocols for accurate, precise and reproducible dosimetry. Most institutions conducting radiation biology research in in vitro or animal models do not have describe experimental irradiation protocols in sufficient details to allow for balanced review of their publication nor for other investigators to replicate published experiments. The need to increase and improve dosimetry standards, traceability to National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) standard beamlines, and to provide dosimetry harmonization within the radiation biology community has been noted for over a decade both within the United States and France. To address this requirement subject matter experts have outlined minimum reporting standards that should be included in published literature for preclinical irradiators and dosimetry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.